Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, v.7 no.2

Permanent URI for this collection


Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item
    P-technique factor analysis and the construct validity of emotional state scales
    (Wichita State University, Department of Psychology, 1985) Barton, Keith; Flocchini, Sheryl
    The objectives of this story were two-fold (a) to investigate the factor structure of the Central State Trait Kit (CST) (Barton 1978) and hence evaluate its construct validity and (b) to develop criteria which can be applied in cases where overall "simple structure" is not high, to allow the optimum identification of the psychological "meaning" of factors. Specifically, P-technique factor analysis was performed on 200 repeated measures over all state items. Results provided both evidence for the construct validity of the CST and demonstrated useful alternative criteria to "simple structure" in the understanding of the meaning of factors.
  • Item
    A reconsideration of the Cooper/Kline critique of the factor structure of the motivation analysis test
    (Wichita State University, Department of Psychology, 1985) Boyle, Gregory J.
    Criticism of Cattell's Motivation Analysis Test (MAT) partly on the basis of a quasi-higher-order factor analysis of the MAT subscales on a sample of 109 subjects is untenable, given the methodological weakness inherent in the procedural application of the method by Cooper and Kline (1982). Cattell's (1982) response to the Cooper/Kline critique did not address these methodological issues directly, but instead concentrated on the controversy pertaining to intra-scale item-homogeneity. The debate over the structure of the MAT requires consideration of the factor analytic issues per se. The present reconsideration of the Cooper/Kline critique attempts to do this, and to provide a fuller perspective on the issues raised by Cooper and Kline. A series of articles recently published in the British Journal of Educational Psychology concerning the internal structure of the Motivation Analysis Test (MAT) has left the reader with a less than adequate account of reliability and validity of the instrument. Cooper/Kline (1982) criticized both the low item-homogeneities and also the factor structure of the MAT. Cattell (1982) responded to the Cooper/Kline critique and addressed the issue of intra-scale item-homogeneity. However the question of the factor structure of the MAT remained unresolved, and subsequently, Kline and Cooper (1982) reiterated their belief that the factor structures of the MAT were not stable across different samples. As Cattell did not address this issue in his response, it is germane to reconsider the evidence provided in the paper by Cooper and Kline. In particular, the present discussion focuses on (1) the validity of the MAT, (2) the number of subjects required, (3) the number of factors extracted, and (4) the question of simple structure. Finally, conclusions regarding the adequacy of the Cooper/Kline critique of the MAT are presented.
  • Item
    Psychological states measured in the clinical analysis questionnaire (CAQ)
    (Wichita State University, Department of Psychology, 1985) Cattell, Raymond B. (Raymond Bernard), 1905-1998; Kameoka, Velma A.
    It has been known for some time that state factoring (dR and P-techniques) of items yields state factors that are clearly replicas of trait factors (Cattell, 1973). Artifactual origins for this have been ruled out (Cattell, 1978). The ratio of intra to inter individual variances in these factors varies greatly, being high in such factors as anxiety and depression, but still significant in such a trait as intelligence (Horn, 1972). These differences have justified, contingently speaking, of state dimension factors and trait change factors, and using the modulation model for each term in the behavioral equation, thus, bxkSxki=vxsxkLxi where b is the behavioral index (loading), S a state measure of i, v is an involvement index, sk a modulation index in situation k, and Lxi is i's endowment in liability (proneness) to state sxi. In state measurement, the ten years of study of depression items from numerous scales by Cattell and Bjerstedt (1967) and Cattell and Bolton (1969) led to the construction that seven distinct state factors (possibly eight) are involved, and names were given to these factors. Kameoka (1979), independently factoring items in depression scales, came similarly to seven or eight factors, As factorists will be aware, the rotation of factors on items purely in a depression area is likely to be less conclusive than in the company of more diverse factors. Consequently, since the seven factors are included in the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire (CAQ), as trait scales, it seemed desirable to do a dR technique factoring (differences of two occasions) of the CAQ both to settle the nature of the primary depression state factors and to determine the role of states in the other dimensions of the CAQ.
  • Item
    Cognitive-behavioral dimensions of weight control
    (Wichita State University, Department of Psychology, 1985) Steer, Robert A.; Jordan, Henry A.; Canavan, Arlene J.
    One hundred-eleven respondents who had achieved at least a 15 lb (6.80 kg) weight loss in a 20-week cognitive-behavioral treatment program for obesity were asked six to 10 years after treatment to describe their current cognitive and behavioral approaches for weight control. Eleven scales were constructed to measure the frequency with which the cognitive and behavioral efforts were extended for Weight Monitoring, Food Record Monitoring, Calorie Counting, Shopping, Food Storage and Preparation, Meal Times, Snack Times, Social Occasions, Taste and Satisfaction, Physical Activity, and Sports/Exercise. An iterated principal-factor analysis employing an oblique solution was performed on the 11 scales' intercorrelation matrix, and three dimensions of weight control were identified - Control, Activity, and Monitoring. The correlations among the factors, however, indicated that each factor explained at least 25% of the other two's variances, and the conclusion was drawn that the 11 scales were meaningfully related to each other. The employment of cognitive-behavioral techniques in one area of weight control was associated with use of such techniques in other areas too.